Say who you are. Anonymous letters go nowhere. Even in email, include your correct name, address, phone number and email address. If you don’t include at least your name and address, you will not get a response.

State any professional credentials or personal experience you may have, especially those pertaining to the subject of your letter.

Keep your letter short — one page is best.

Use specific examples or evidence to support your position.

State what it is you want done or recommend a course of action.

Thank the member for taking the time to read your letter.

Never

Use vulgarity, profanity, or threats. The first two are just plain rude and the third one can get you a visit from the Secret Service. Simply stated, don’t let your passion get in the way of making your point,

Fail to include your name and address, even in email letters.

Demand a response.

3 Comments

I would like to see somebody when they have time to start adding the supporters of nuclear
It would also be good to see a list of well known people who have recently decided to support or have had a change of heart such as Robert Stone’s Documentary does.

Here is a letter posted on Facebook by Craig Hocker in support of saving U233 stored at Oak Ridge National Laboratory which is now be prepared to be destroyed.

Dear Congressman xxxxxx,

My background is in physics and chemistry. I am a published scientist and resident of your district.

With all the talk of cutting the budget and people arguing over what to cut this year, I wish you would take a serious look at this proposal,

this is a significant idea for how the government can

1. save $500 million dollars now
2. accelerate the development of next generation safe nuclear reactors that solves the issues of both efficient use of domestic energy resources and huge reduction of wastes and the lifetime of residual wastes.
3. help NASA explore deep space
4. save thousands of lives from cancer

It’s pretty simple–cancel the Department of Energy’s plan to destroy the uranium-233 stored at Oak Ridge National Lab.

there is a great deal of additional information at that website and some very reputable articles have been published in the last year as well, you will find a great many reputable scientists and engineers are backing this idea as well.

All I ask is you investigate this because I see this as a no-brainer for anyone that is informed about the details.

Here’s an open letter I posted to Justin Trudeau that explains the importance of an energy education.

Dear Justin Trudeau

I am in favour of any leader who knows energy science. That tells me they care about the environment and recognize that in order to protect the planet from disaster from climate change we cannot simply adapt an “all of the above” outlook on energy. The days of politicians who rely on other politicians to guide them on policy has to end. Consult with the experts, scientists and engineers. The need for energy will keep getting bigger and our resources will keep getting smaller. There is only one reliable source of energy that is sustainable and will never run out and that is nuclear energy. Look at the facts. http://thoriummsr.com and http://deregulatetheatom.com

Two of the biggest discoveries I have made in recent years is related to radiation. One is that we all have experienced radiation from the beginning of time. (read Leslie Corrice’s page “The ‘Nuclear isn’t Natural’ Myth“) The same elements that have been around since the big bang are still releasing their radiation except perhaps the elements that have nearly disappeared from natural decay, the point is that our bodies have learned to deal with small amounts of radiation like what has occurred in Fukushima. In fact we evolved from a time when natural radiation was much stronger. (see The Time is Right For Discussing Hormesis )

Second is that nuclear activity is what keeps the earth’s core in a molten state and that without out it we would not have a magnetic field that enables the planet to deflect solar winds from the sun preventing us from turning into a dead planet.

The problem with wind and solar are a double whammy of expense and unreliability. The energy from nuclear is just so much more dense and reliable it occupies much less space. When you actually look at their differences you will be shocked. (see Nuclear power compared to other sources )